Template:Did you know nominations/Greater bamboo bat
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 22:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Greater bamboo bat
- ... that up to forty greater bamboo bats will roost in a single bamboo shoot?
- Source: Comparative phylogeography of bamboo bats of the genus Tylonycteris (Chiroptera, Vespertilionidae) in Southeast Asia, https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/view/398/835, "Bamboo bats of the genus Tylonycteris ... are small-sized bats ... all species can often be found roosting within bamboo internodes in colonies of up to 40 individuals", while Roosting associations of flat-headed bats, Tylonycteris species (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) in Malaysia, https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1972.tb01362.x clarifies that these "colonies" are roosting within one bamboo internode.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Giselle Mather
- Comment:
Rusalkii (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC).
- @Rusalkii: Hi, I will be reviewing this article. Here are my comments below: Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 00:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- Article was nominated right after expansion, so it passes the newness check.
- Article is exceeds 1,500 bytes, so it passes the minimum length check. Number of characters in current version's prose is five times greater than the prose prior to expansion, so it satisfies the fivefold expansion criterion.
- The academic articles used in this article look reputable and are used appropriately for each sentence in the prose. Earwig shows no obvious plagiarism.
- Hook only has one bolded link, so the presentability rule does not apply here. Hook is concise and adequately cited with two sources, although the second source of them are paywalled. I can access the second source via my university or Sci-Hub, so I can confirm they are accurate to the quote and citation here.
I do have one minor issue though. I think it would be helpful to provide a link for the first source of the hook citation, as well as italicized the first source's title link you did for the second source. Would this link work? (https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/view/398/835)
- The article's image is public domain, licensing is accurate to its source, and is recognizable at low resolution.
- Looking at the article, I see no glaring errors in the prose. Prose reads clearly.
- I see no other issues other than the source link for the hook citation
and your upcoming QPQ(QPQ is done). Good work! I look forward to passing this one once these are out of the way. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 00:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the right link! Sorry, you can even see where I left two commas in a row planning to paste the link between them and then forgot. QPQ has been done, Template:Did you know nominations/Giselle Mather.
